New trial granted in DWI manslaughter case

A new trial has been granted for a woman who had been sentenced to 15 years in prison on a plea agreement in a fatal drunken driving crash, court documents state.

Desiree Skaf, now 23, was granted a new trial Friday in connection with a collision that killed 25-year-old Janet Balderrama in the Upper Valley in 2013.

A state judge ruled that Skaf's plea agreement was “fatally flawed” when she pleaded guilty to intoxicated manslaughter and was sentenced in March. Court documents state that Skaf had agreed to a seven-year sentence, but the agreement was tossed by 171st District Court Judge Bonnie Rangel, who sentenced Skaf to 15 years.

Skaf, who remains at the El Paso County Jail, had pleaded guilty to crashing her Volkswagen Jetta into the back of a Mazda 3 at about 3 a.m. on July 11, 2013, in the 5900 block of Doniphan Drive, according to court documents. The collision caused the Mazda to go off the road, spin and crash into a utility pole.

Balderrama, who was a passenger in the Mazda, was critically injured and died two days later at University Medical Center of El Paso.

"I leave it all in the hands of God," Balderrama's mother, Lourdes Balderrama, said Wednesday. "I was surprised (about the new trial). I thought it was all over. It's what God wants. If it is 15 years (in prison), if it's 20 years or if it's nothing, my daughter will not return."

Skaf had originally reached a plea agreement with state prosecutors in February. The agreement was that Skaf would plead guilty to an intoxicated manslaughter charge in exchange for a seven-year prison sentence.

She was facing up to 20 years in prison.

During a March sentencing hearing, Skaf’s lawyer, Mario Gonzalez, argued that the agreement included the right for Skaf to appeal the sentence. Prosecutors argued that by signing the plea agreement, Skaf waived her right to appeal.

The plea agreement was then thrown out by Judge Rangel, who ruled that since there was a misunderstanding between the two sides, legally no agreement had been reached.

(Photo: Courtesy Lourdes Balderrama)

Since Skaf had pleaded guilty in April, Rangel said that it was an open plea. Prosecutors then changed their recommendation of seven years to the maximum of 20 years in prison.

Rangel then issued a 15-year prison sentence.

Skaf’s new lawyers — Brent Mayr, Richard Esper and Joe Spencer — filed a motion in April to grant Skaf a new trial due to the misunderstanding involving the plea agreement.

"We are also very mindful of the family of those affected by this tragic accident," Mayr said in an email. "They have been in the thoughts and prayers of Ms. Skaf and her entire family. This motion was, by no means, meant to discredit them or their loss but simply to insure that the outcome of this criminal case is one that is legally correct and just.”

The lawyers stated in the motion for a new trial that proceedings involving the plea agreement were “an absolute miscarriage of justice.” They also stated that the day of the sentencing “turned out to be a day of disaster.”

According to court documents, Skaf and Gonzalez had accepted the plea deal. Skaf then hired Mayr, Esper and Spencer to handle her appeal in the case.

The day of the sentencing in March, state prosecutors and court officials became aware that Skaf was planning to appeal. The motion states that upon arriving at court and learning "that defendant (Skaf) was filing a notice of appeal, both the state (prosecutors) and the court (Judge Rangel) became infuriated.”

The lawyers claimed that the part in the plea agreement about giving up her right to appeal was scratched out on the plea agreement documents.

Prosecutors argued that they did not agree, which is shown by the fact that they did not modify the agreement to show that Skaf had retained her right to appeal.

The documents state that Judge Rangel gave Skaf the option to take the plea agreement that included waiving her right to appeal or to withdraw her guilty plea.

If Skaf withdrew her plea, her bond would be revoked and she would be sent back to jail until her new trial date.

Skaf decided to withdraw her guilty plea, but the motion states that “the court reneged” on the offer.

Skaf’s lawyers argued that she deserved a new trial because her plea was “involuntary” since she had originally thought she was retaining her right to appeal.

The motion also states that the “court impermissibly participated and interfered in plea negotiations.”

Defense lawyers claim Rangel acted improperly when she allegedly directed prosecutors to change their original plea offer of eight years.

“Because the court impermissibly engaged in the plea negotiations in this case, the defendant’s conviction and sentence should be set aside and she should be granted a new trial,” the motion states.

Judge Rangel granted Skaf a new trial Friday.

Defense lawyers then filed a motion to have Rangel recused from being the trial judge.

They claim in the motion that the actions taken by the court during the arguments over the plea agreement created a concern of impartiality going forward with the new trial.

Senior Justice David Wellington Chew denied the motion of recusal filed by the defense on Tuesday.

“While I find the motion of recuse timely and not frivolous, I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence before me to raise a genuine question of the Trial Court’s impartiality going forward,” Chew said in his ruling.

Chew stated that the plea agreement that caused all the issues was “fatally flawed” and “that in the face of her prior counsel’s misrepresentation, the defendant’s plea was not voluntary or knowing.”

He added that “despite then instant animus or rancor towards the defendant’s previous counsel, which clearly influenced the Trial Court’s rejection of the plea agreement and sentencing decision, there is insufficient evidence of any direct or lasting animus towards either the defendant or her present attorney, Richard Esper.”